Copper Classic

2019 — UT/US

Kenji Aoki Paradigm

3 rounds

Please add me to the email chain: kvaoki2000@gmail.com | kvaoki2000 AT gmail DOT com

Background + Top Level

I debated for (Salt Lake City) West (2014-18) as a 2A. During the debate season I mostly read kritikal arguments (including performance-based arguments), however, at camp I debated nearly only policy arguments and have read both extinction level affs and soft left affs. My junior year, my partner and I on the neg would usually go 1-2 off (Topicality and a K), while in my senior year my partner and I would switch between 1 off K strategies and 6-7 off case strategies where my 1NRs would typically be taking the politics DA, T, or a PIC.

Currently debating for Harvard (was both a 2A and 2N my first-year and now am a 2N).

TL;DR: do what you do best because you shouldn’t have to sacrifice your style for any minor predisposition that I may have.

If this matters to you, I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year.

Topicality

Please unpack, apply, and compare, commonly used buzzwords as the rebuttals get closer, i.e. “vote neg because our interpretation sets a functional limit on the topic,” isn’t a complete argument until there is an explanation of why the parameters the neg sets up are better than the aff interpretation for xyz reason.

Impact + caselist comparisons are essential.

Reasonability needs to be connected to how it interacts with neg offense and not just a laundry list of reasons why it is better than competing interpretations.

I think cards and evidence comparison are often underutilized in these debates.

Counterplans + Counterplan Theory

I’m don’t have a predisposition to judge kick. If you’re a 2N, just make it explicit in the 2NR that you would like me to judge kick and I’ll default to considering the status quo or neg advocacy if there isn’t sufficient contestation in the 2AR.

Please, please, please if you’re aff tie your solvency deficits to a specific impact and explain why it outweighs the net benefit to the counterplan. Conversely, if you’re neg, explain why the deficits don’t apply or why the deficits are unimportant because the CP sufficiently solves.

In terms of most theory issues: literature determines how I evaluate the extent of “abusiveness” of a counterplan; the more specific the solvency advocate, the better. I default to reject the arg, not the team and am relatively unpersuaded by process cps, agent cps, etc. being a reason to reject the neg.

Word PICs and PICs in general are fine.

DAs

Strong analytical pushes can beat most convoluted DAs (but that's also not an excuse to not read cards)

Turns case arguments on multiple levels of the aff (link level, impact level) are fantastic

Zero percent risk is possible to go for, but not the most preferable strategy

Also case debate is good + underutilized

Ks

Contextualization > Explanation in every instance, which should reflect in the way you give an overview

Quoting 1AC evidence in part of your link walls will get you greater speaks

Stealing this from Kiyan’s wiki: “links to: the action of the plan > knowledge production > actor > fiat”

Root cause and links of omission aren’t links sans massive explanation

Authors/Args I am well-versed in: Asian ID, Berlant, Cap, Critical Race Theory, Disability, Edelman, Foucault, Necropolitics, Queer Theory, and Settlerism

K Affs/Framework

Having a relationship to the topic is preferable

Arguments by analogy make me sad

K Affs probably get a perm

I don’t initially start a round thinking fairness is an impact, but can be convinced if there is heavy investment and a lack of contestation by the aff. I would much rather have a debate about the educational benefit of the two models presented in the debate, over a debate about competitive equity.

TVAs should preferably have carded support to prove a literature base or should have a substantive explanation as to how they provide a similar discussion of the aff's issues and internal links. Simply reading an alternative plan text is not sufficient.

Performances are cool; have explanations and develop them as the debate goes on

Misc (but still important) things

If you have an issue with access in terms of debate, please feel free to send me an email before the round so that I can make the necessary accommodations.

Tech > Truth except arguments that justify “racism/sexism/antiqueerness/antiblackness/ableism good”

A dropped argument still needs an extension of a claim and a warrant for me to evaluate it.

Jennifer Avondet Paradigm

6 rounds

I debated policy in highschool- a long, long time ago, but I really loved it. I enjoy judging, but I haven't done much so I am not updated on the most modern kritiks and theories. I'm pretty traditional. I lean policy maker, but I will vote on topicality if it's relevant. You'll have to be very convincing to get me to vote on a kritik or more 'out of the box' argument. Speed is fine if you are clear. Please slow down for tag lines and analysis. It's important to me that debators/speakers be respectful of others and polite in rounds. You can absolutely be passionate and forceful about your arguments without being dismissive of others in your rounds. If any type of abuse does occur, it's fine to point out ot briefly, but I'll be aware, so please don't waste time whining about it in your speeches. I will be a little out of my element judging rounds other than policy, but I'll do my best to be fair and thorough.

Callie Avondet Paradigm

3 rounds

General Notes:

SILVER AND BLACK 2019: I have not judged a round on this topic since camp. I know the general arguments that are happening, especially if they are from CNDI, but if you are using topic specific acronyms please say the full thing out at least once in your speech or answering a cx question just to remind me. Obviously you probably won't lose for this so don't stress it too much (I can read the card along with you and figure it out) but if you remember it would be much appreciated.

- Please include me in the email chain callielynne26@gmail.com

- Warrants are what make me vote on arguments- isolate the specific warrants you want me to remember because I won't remember every warrant from every card in the constructives

-Please slow down a little bit on your typed analytics, especially if they are most of or at the beginning of your speech. Argument tags will help me flow your analytics but no worries if you don't have them. Just know that I can't flow every word as fast as you can say them.

Argument Thoughts:

K Affs and Framework- I've read these affs and thing they can be really cool if you know what your aff does or does not do and can explain that. I find that I lean towards affs that are in the direction of the topic not being as big of a violation of framework as others, but I am also willing to vote against these affs if the neg can explain why this is bad. The cleaner the framework flow is the happier I will be.

Topicality- Good T debate is specific T debate. What affs do they include? What successful teams are reading topical affs?and reading a case list are all some examples of viable options. Make sure you answer all of their standards sufficiently, this often(though not always) means that for T to be a viable 2NR strat at least 3 minutes of the block should be spent on it. I have also found that I am more persuaded by ground args than limits, but I'm willing to vote on limits if it is more specific than generic blocks your varsity's varsity wrote.

Theory- The more I've judged the more I've realized I am not super willing to vote on theory. I will if I need to and am much more likely and willing to vote on theory if it is specific and contextualize to the round. I have no idea how to evaluate two teams reading generic theory blocks and if the round turns in to this it will be so much harder for me to vote on theory.

CPs- Handle theory appropriately. Make sure you explain what your counter plan does and have good perm answers.

DAs- I like DAs with clear internal link analysis. If it is vague and something along the lines of "X causes the economy to decline which causes a nuclear war" with no explanation of how the economic decline causes a nuclear war I will have a hard time defending a DA scenario on the ballot.

Kritiks- Make sure you can explain the alt and defend it in CX. I think the best K debate is specific K debate, so if you can read lines of their evidence to prove the link and/or isolate multiple links that is best. You should also make sure you are winning at least some risk of the alt solving or doing something good.

Justin Baker Paradigm

6 rounds

Assistant Debate Coach Skyline High School UT (2011-present)

Update: 11/14/18

[justinbaker006 gmail com]

I evaluate debate argumentation before evidence. Unless you specifically tell me to look at x,y,z evidence first, it's unlikely that I will hinge the debate on the evidence. I prefer voting off of the flow, but will look to substantiate evidence comparisons through the evidence.

I heavily favor debates that actively encourage clash. I find this notoriously lacking in small circuit policy v k debates. For the kritik, I like concise overviews and additional link analysis.

I prefer contextualized theory debates, over flow heavy theory debates. Resolution and round specific analysis carries more weight on my flow than the number of your turns to topic education.

I try to follow a speaker point system with median 28 and deviation .5. In this system a 29.5-30 reflects top 2% of speakers on the national circuit.

Ian Beier Paradigm

6 rounds

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness is a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. clipping - i sometimes read along with speeches if i think that you are clipping. i will prompt you if i think you are clipping and if i think you are still clipping i will vote against you even if the other team doesnt issue an ethics challenge.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then forward.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

old judge philosophy wiki that i will leave as a historical artifact:

Me – I debated for both Cate Palczweski and Jacob Thompson. I was the ADoD at UNLV from 2010-2013. I was at Damien High School from 2013-2015. I was at KU from 2015-2018. I am now at College Prep.

Cross-ex is rarely damning on any question. Stop saying that. if the person you are speaking over in cross-ex is your own partner who is also trying to answer the question, you may have a problem. a hilarious problem.

for the love of god can we stop having these moments in cross ex where we say "obviously debate doesnt leave this room when we say the government should do something" in a condescending tone. you sound ridiculous. no one thinks that. literally no one. this is like... the royalty of a straw-person argument.

I like solvency advocates that say what your plan says, impact comparisons, people that are having fun, and milkshakes. I flow. I vote on dropped arguments that I dont believe.

I increasingly find myself protecting negative teams because the 2AR explanation seems too new. So for all of you shady 2ARs out there, you need to hide your newness better. Or, you know, communicate with your partner so that they can help set up your argument(s).

Debate is a world of enthymemes where there is a lot of presumption on the part of community in relation to the meaning of the text that you choose to speak. It would be a mistake to not fully explain an argument because you think I "get it." Sometimes that may be the case, but that is by no means a universal truth. Play your game, but make sure I understand what game we are playing at the conclusion of the debate. E.g. If you thought an evidence comparison should have gone differently than my RFD, it is probably your fault. Debate is a communicative activity, so identifying how I should evaluate your evidence / their evidence is... important.

I think debate is a game. This probably makes me evaluate debate differently. I will listen to anything I guess. If you think an argument is stupid, I would assume that you can easily defeat said argument. These are my thoughts, but keep in mind I will not just insert these things into the debate. That is your job. I have front loaded the philosophy with the things that you are most likely here to read. Without further ado:

Clipping - in many respects I think that prompts for clarity are interventionist. However, clipping is rampant, particularly during the 1AC. if I think that you are clipping, I will say clear. If it becomes a problem, I will prompt you with something to the effect of "read all of the highlighting." If I think that you are still clipping after this prompt, I will vote against you.

Buzzwords – stop it. If you cannot explain the argument, then that dog wont hunt. Also, I would really appreciate it if people would stop saying 'sure' prior to answering questions.

Critiques – An Aff will probably lose if they read generic answers and: don’t apply them to the criticism and don’t apply them to the affirmative. The more topic specific the K the better. The negative needs to win either that you 1) solve the aff 2) outweigh the aff [in those weird method v method debates] 3) have a framework or theory that makes the aff irrelevant. I dig the impact turn (imperialism good, Fox News) but also understand that these are probably more links to the critique. I find that lots of high end theory does not make sense when it is reduced to a blurb in the debate. method v method might be a top 5 worse argument in debate next to aspec.

"non-plan affs" – That word probably bastardizes your argument but I don't have a great alternate label that people can find in a quick search through judge philosophies. These are my predispositions. If you can address them, I'm all yours (but even if you don't, you should not worry. It seems to impact the debate less and less because you are answering generic blocks with specific arguments about your method.):
First, "role of the ballot" is over-used and rarely explained as a concept. Please do not assume that you will win just because you said it. Second, my understanding of the "policy debate good" literature means if I don't understand by your last speech, I will vote on a coherent framework argument. This is becoming less and less true because people are so afraid to say limits that they just say "you killed my decision-making" and decide thats sufficient for an impact. Third, these types of arguments typically mean the other team is forced to defend the community practices and not their own. At times I think this is a straw person argument, but I have become increasingly aware that this is not as artificial as I used to think. Fourth, teams tend to hilariously mishandle form arguments and generally lack a coherent strategy on the neg when answering these affs. Most of the time, every argument is a different way to say "you gotta have a plan." Even if the arguments sound distinct in the 1NC, they usually aren't by the 2NR. Rather than focusing on what you have prewritten, you should exploit these problems in the neg strategy. I end up voting for critical teams quite a bit because of this strategic problem even though i firmly believe in the pedagogical value of affirmatives being germane to the resolution.

Framework - "a discussion of the topic rather than a topical discussion" is not a good counter-interpretation. the limits disad is real.

Topicality – T is not genocidal unless the argument is dropped. I evaluate it like a disad so you should impact out arguments beyond words like "fairness" or "education". topicality is an evidentiary issue

Theory – You should go for theory because teams dont know how to answer it. The more counterplans there are, the more sympathetic I become to theory. that being said, its hard to be negative and the neg can do whatever they want. My threshold for theory other than conditionality is somewhat high as a reason to reject the team.

Disads - do people even read judge philosophies for this anymore? Don't bury me in cards. You may not like the outcome. Explanation of 1 really good card is better than 5 bad cards. The politics disad is a thing and so are other disads. i cut a lot of politics updates.

Counterplans - should have solvency advocates and should exploit generic link chains in aff advantages. The idea that a counterplan needs a card specific to the aff is not a deal breaker. Affs should probably read CP texts... they often times fiat out of your solvency deficits. what happened to 2nc counterplans?

Case Debate - These should be a thing. Ideally, there should be more than just generic impact defense. Otherwise, you will probably lose to specificity. People should impact turn.... everything.

Shannon Blackham Paradigm

6 rounds

I am primarily a policymaker judge, with a stock issues influence. If you have no idea what this means, you need to ask your coach. Whether you know what it means or not, everyone needs to learn how to adapt to judges.

While I am an experienced policy debater, after my debate career, I experienced a traumatic brain injury. This makes some things harder, but in all reality, I think you should debate this way anyway. EXPLAIN your knowledge of every piece of evidence or analytic that you bring to the table. ARTICULATE/EMPHASIZE the taglines and analytics, because if I can't flow it, you don't get credit for it. What's more, part of my brain trauma was to the right hemisphere which impacts my understanding of most Kritiks, so it's safer not to run Ks in front of me, sorry! I thoroughly understand util.

I'm mean with speaker points. I feel that 30 speaks should be triumphant, not expected. HUGE bonus points if you can make me laugh, if you make fun of someone, if you reference Psych, quote Brian Regan, and if you keep speech times short. You absolutely should not feel like you need to ever fill up all of the speech time, say what you need to say; if it takes all 8/5 minutes, great, if not, perfect, sit down. Ask questions. If you don't know if something is allowed, try it anyway.

P.S. Speechdrop.net is my favorite way of sharing evidence.

Madeline Brague Paradigm

6 rounds

Please put me on the email chain - madelinebrague@gmail.com

Quick version for 5 minutes before round:

I am most fluent in critical literature, but I would MUCH prefer a good policy debate to a sub-par K debate. If you read a politics DA, I need more than a single generic link (some damn good analytics can do it for me in some cases). I love a well-executed K, but I would say I'm equally sympathetic to framework and policy turns. Just win your arguments and know that I'm not a good judge for extremely ticky-tacky debate on the exact political implementations of a plan mainly because I usually don't care (process counterplans, I'm looking at you).

***NOTE: please PLEASE don't start top-speed, it's very difficult for me. A few minutes into the speech and you're good to go full speed but don't start there, ESPECIALLY on T or framework or case overviews (full-speed analytics are a hellish nightmare). Start as though you're giving a 2nr overview on T. If you want more info, see below.

Now the details for all you people-pleasers:

A bit about me - I debated for Rowland Hall in high school and currently coach for them. I love debate because it is what you make it. If you win the argument (and I agree that you won it), I'll vote on it. I debated using mostly critical literature when I was the captain, but I usually had policy partners. We went for framework 95% of the time. This means that I am *technically* most experienced with critical jargon, but please don't go for a K that you don't know rather than giving me a solid policy debate. To quote Misty Tippets, "Debate is for the debaters."

Judges I hope to emulate:

Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Daryl Burch, Calum Matheson, Kinsee Gaither, Misty Tippets

About speed:

I'm totally good with speed—but debaters tend to start at top speed and then gradually slow down as they lose steam, which is bad. I cannot catch your arguments when you start that way, and I WILL NOT say "clear" or "slow" to let you know, because it's your job to debate and speak in a compelling way that makes me want to vote for you. Maybe this is more of a problem for me than other judges, but please PLEASE please start slower so I can get used to your voice.

Preferences by argument:

Disads - I love a good link analysis and case turns that don't rely on the threat of nuclear war. DA's are obviously the building blocks of debate, so use them. Remember that generic blocks by themselves won't necessarily get you too far because it's a debate, not a monologue.

Politics - I gave this its own section because I can very much appreciate a politics DA with killer link analysis and a "legitimate" internal link chain (let's be real, they're all stretches). However, please do not run a politics DA when you only have generic links unless it's literally the only argument you have against the aff. When the link is that any aff being passed ever triggers the link, I have a lot of sympathy to the whole non-UQ argument (which makes it very hard to win this DA in that scenario).

Counterplans - if you have a decent net benefit, I think counterplans are great with one exception: process counterplans. I think most debaters tend to run these without a solid internal link to the net benefit, and I just don't think they're very strategic. If you win them, I'll vote on them, but remember: using unexplained political jargon—policy trigger words like "due process"—will not help you at all in front of me.

Topicality - I think case lists are really important for actually winning an impact for both sides. This means both sides should have one! Don't just randomly assert that one side loses or gains a bunch of ground without proving it. Remember that as the neg, you need to win that your model of debate is good in all instances, not just this round. For the aff: I don't have a definition of reasonability that I'll hold you to, because there are lots of interpretations of what it means and I don't think it's necessary to prefer one over the others. But YOU need to define it for me.

Kritiks: I think these have the potential to be both the best and worst arguments in debate. Know your literature and use your evidence! I will likely know your literature—so anything from afropessimism to Baudrillard is fine—but even if I understand your jargon-filled cards, you need to prove to me that YOU understand them (if you don't, at least try to fake it till you make it). The best K debaters will work closely with aff evidence and arguments, not dismiss them as irrelevant to the "real questions" that your shut-in scholars like to ponder.

Planless/nontraditional affs - I'll jive with whatever you're throwing at me as long as you can defend it. Some relation to the topic is probably good, but if you can defend why not then I'm down. I ran these a lot and will likely have a basic understanding of your literature, but I think a good TVA can be deadly. You need to prove that 1) you DO solve things, 2) it's the BEST way to solve those things, and 3) those things are important. Please make your solvency mechanism and impacts clear.

Framework - I think this is a strategic argument when done right, and I enjoy a good defense of the model of debate that you think is most productive. Fairness is the only true impact in my opinion—you can win education is good, but I don't think you can win that you're the only ones who access education. I think framework as an impact turn/pseudo-counterplan is very strategic, and you can have education/game net benefits. It will help you to weigh framework against the mechanism of the aff in front of me. Framework against a critique will VERY rarely be enough to win the debate on its own but can be strategic in hedging against the offense of a K.

Theory - I usually feel good about voting on these kinds of arguments until the impact debate, where teams hope that if their opponents drop it then I'll automatically vote. I'll be very sympathetic, and certainly don't beat a dead horse on the theory flow, but please actually explain your impacts! There has to be a reason why it matters that they dropped it!

Stuff I like -

- a joke or two—stop taking this activity so damn seriously

- showing legitimate respect towards the other people in the room

- detailed links to minutiae in the aff

- 1ARs given off of paper (except for reading a card)

Pet peeves -

- Saying "CX was DAMNING on this question." No it wasn't. Just say "CX proves that..." and don't be so condescending.

- Yelling over people in CX just to prove a point. The judge can never hear what's going on when both speakers are trying to talk over each other and you're being rude.

- Not flowing the 2AR/just randomly gazing off into space during the 2AR. The debate hasn't ended, so you're still a debater...act like it.

- Using lots of your prep time to ask CX questions just to be annoying to the other team. I'm not listening at this point.

- Spreading through blocks. If they're that long, then you should shorten them.

- Saying "obviously debate doesn't leave this room when we say the government should do something." Oh really? I thought you were a senator. My b

I hope this goes without saying, but I will not tolerate any kind of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, queerphobic, ableist, or otherwise exclusionary discourse/conduct. Doing so will result in lowest possible speaks and an automatic loss for me.

Bailey Brunyer Paradigm

6 rounds

Please put me on the E-mail chain: baileybrunyer7@gmail.com

I am a debater at WSU and I have been apart of the debate community for 5 years. I have debated and/or debated against almost every argument that you have probably ever heard of. I have been switching between being the 2A and the 2N almost my whole debate career. Honestly just do whatever you want and if you win it, I will vote on it. Here is some more specific shit.

Affirmative

There are two thing that you need coming out the 1AC

1: An impact that is generated for the status quo

2: A way to solve those impacts

If you don't have both or either of these, there is very little chance that I will vote for you

FW

All of debate is a performance and all research must first require an interpretation of how debate should look or happen. I believe that the best interpretation is that there is always room for any interpretation about debate. Form there we can debate on which interp is just better, that may include predictability or it may include inclusivity.

DA

Offense is key! if you don't have this on at least one of the flows, there is very little chance that you could win. I believe that a team could win on running only defense, but no one wants to give or listen to that 2NR. I don't think that enough 2As will go for things like the theory level threshold of the link. For example, I think there is something to be said about fill-in DAs because it seems to not be an effectual consequence of the Aff but rather just something that happens after the plan. On the other side, I think that there are issues with that arguing swell. The takeaway should be that DAs should not just get away with the links that they read if they seem unfair on a meta level of any offense.

CP/Alternatives

I really like seeing unique CP/alternatives but if you don't have a net ben then there is no reason to vote for them if the Aff. teams reads a perm, duh. Even if you have a boring CP but you think it could win, then read it. With that said, I think it would be really cool to see some perm theory.

Theory

I really like seeing good theory debates but something that I would like to see more theory shells talk about voting issues that are more kritikal but I done;t mind education and fairness being the voting issues.

Trent DeGiovanni Paradigm

6 rounds

I debated for 4 years in high school and debated my Freshmen and Senior year at Gonzaga. I graduated last year and haven't heard a debate on this topic so assume I know very little of the relevant literature.

Feel free to do what you do best, just be prepared to explain it clearly. In life I like to do as little as possible, debate is no exception, so please make my decision easy.

Aff:

I'm most familiar with affs that read a plan but I'm open to whatever you're doing as long as you have some brand of advocacy statement. The less you bracket off as having to defend the more likely I am to be sympathetic to framework arguments (which really shouldn't be a surprise). If you are reading a policy-based aff then really getting into case arguments will be persuasive to me.

Neg:

Framework:

Theoretical framework isn't as persuasive as substantive framework. I'd much rather hear why policy progress in the area of the resolution is desirable. TVA's are good but not necessary, if you aren't going to read one that is probably an indication that theoretical arguments should compliment substantive ones.

Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations but am more likely that most to vote on a reasonability argument. Please slow down in these debates. Standards should be debate liked internal links to voters.

Disads:

I'm not the best judge for the politics DA because of the quality of the evidence. If you happen to have fire evidence then read it in front of me because I enjoy being surprised. Topic and case specific DA's are always appreciated.

CP's:

Smart case specific counter plans will be rewarded above all else. If you are running some generic agent/process counterplan you need to have a solvency advocate that agrees with your counterplan text, but if you have some great case specific idea go wild. I won't immediately dismiss your consult counterplans, your conditions counterplans, really anything just because the aff claimed it was unfair.

K's:

I probably won't have in depth knowledge of whatever literature base you are pulling from but I likely have some passing similarity. That means I probably need some more explanation of how everything is suppose to function especially in the context of the round. Spending time explaining what the alternative does is probably worthwhile.

Misc:

Conditionality: I'll vote aff on it if you don't deal with it properly but as a rule of thumb if you don't contradict you're good.

I have a low threshold to vote on a dropped argument, even if I don't necessarily like it, so assume that is more important than any of my opinions about specific arguments.

Run less arguments, develop them better, and have a clear vision of how they interact with the rest of the debate.

Put me on the email chain.

Questions? trentdegiovanni@gmail.com

Marley Dominguez Paradigm

6 rounds

Marley Dominguez

Please put me on the email chain - marleyixchel@gmail.com

Background:

Juan Diego Catholic H.S. (2N/1A) - 3 years of national policy debate

*Copper Classic Note - 2018-19 H.S. Topic: This is my first time judging on this topic, so please clarify any acronyms or complicated topic-specific jargon.

Arguments:

K Affs- Mostly what my partner and I read during hs but that doesn't mean you should worry about reading a policy, plan-based affirmative with me in the back. I'm good with both and prefer you to do what you do best. K affs should have some relation/be in the direction to the topic and have good solvency mechanisms.

Case Debate- V important! Good case debate looks like case DAs/case turns for the neg and a case flow in every speech for the aff.

Framework- I think this is definitely a good strategy against K affs, but prefer it to not be the only strategy coming out of the 1NC, but more so that it engages the affirmative. Include a topical version of the aff and why it's a better method to solve the impacts that the affirmative outlines. Fairness and predictability as impacts against K affs aren't as persuasive to me, but making arguments about why the tools/skills policy education gives you is key.

Kritiks- This is what I'm most familiar with, but specifically Ks in the gender/feminist literature base. If you choose to run a K make sure there are multiple links specific to the plan, turns case arguments, and a good explanation of the alt and how it implicates the impacts of the aff. A good explanation of the alt and the links are especially needed for high theory/postmodern Ks, as I have limited knowledge on this lit base.

Disads/CPs- Make sure to have a strong link debate. Include impact comparison & calc. Disads specific to the aff is cool just make sure to explain the internal link chain in the block so we're all on the same page. The CPs function should be clearly explained in CX/the block.

Topicality- While T is the argument I have least experience on, don't be afraid to go for it if the aff is v untopical. Be sure to slow down when reading T so I can catch everything. Impacts are super important in a T debate, and must be thoroughly explained (ie. not just saying "limits").

Speaking Style/Points

Similar to a lot of paradigms, it is best when speakers write my ballot in the final rebuttals (ie. frame what is the most important part of the debate and why you win.) This makes the decision a lot easier, but also allows you to focus on the larger question of the debate.

If you read theory, slow down when you get to it so I can actually flow what you're saying.

Clarity > Speed.

Have fun, be respectful of others, and be nice. Any offensive/violent/overly aggressive speech or behavior won't be tolerated.

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me or ask me questions before the round.

JD Elbrader Paradigm

4 rounds

I like a fair fight, use sources paired with the information you give.

1.Ensure that both your opponents and I know what cards you are running on your document, be sure to give all of the cards you are using through email chain, flash drive, ect. If you bring a new argument or new piece of info that works toward an argument into the debate without providing the card to your opponents and I, I will mark it down on the ballot and it will alter your chances of winning the round.

2.Clarify the order of your speeches

3.I will evaluate your cases by following stock issues carefully, try to not drop advantages/disadvantages and arguments as a whole.

4.I like clear speaking during the whole round so I can hear and understand all the information that is given so I can make the best judgment of the students cases.

enjoy your time debating, and be proud of the work you put into your cases. :)

Mario Feola Paradigm

6 rounds

I debated in highschool at Rowland Hall, where I cleared at the TOC. I've judged rarely over the last 5 years, and just a few rounds on the immigration topic. Feel free to treat me like an averagely intelligent person that knows zero acronyms and would benefit from you slowing down 20%. Clarity >> speed always.

Other than that, please do what you do best. Put yourself in my shoes and ask yourself how to make it easiest for me to vote for you. I agree with everything in Mike Shackelford's paradigm if you want more specifics.


I will try my best to be objective, although I will reward your ethos within the round:

  • Reference cross-x in your speeches - otherwise what's the point?
  • Don’t be afraid to make bold decisions or use humor – it’ll improve the round

Other random stuff:

  • Tell me where to vote. I've had this in my paradigm forever and I'm often disappointed that rebuttals don't include specific instructions on where/why I'm signing my ballot
  • Impact comparison is your friend (this includes T/Theory)
  • Don't read arguments you don't understand
  • Answer the best version of your opponent’s argument.

I am not easily offended – take from that what you will. THAT BEING SAID, please always be respectful of your opponents and have fun!

Dylan Frederick Paradigm

6 rounds

Debated Policy for 4 years at Juan Diego, Graduated 2014

Judged at about 10 tournaments last year, for a total of about 60 rounds. Judged about that many rounds in years prior. Judged close to 40 rounds this year

dylanpaulfrederick@gmail.com for any questions, and for adding me to the email chain.

Updated for Stanford

I have some stats on my decision history at the bottom if that interests you.

I'm fine with any argument you present so long as it indeed is an argument (read: provide warrants). I'm not here to try to do the work for you. I'm a sucker for good framing arguments, generally the less thinking I have to do at the end of the debate the happier you will be.

The key to earning my ballot in 99% of debates is clearly explaining offense. I often start evaluating the debate based on impact calc arguments and go from there. The more in depth the better, the more comparison the better. This tends to influence how many speaks I give you, so if you're looking for good points, do a good job here.

I will try to write out my decision so everyone has a guide that explains how I came to the conclusions I did. I've voted for all kinds of stuff, all that matters is that you're doing the better debating.

Short Opinions:

K affs - go for it. Voted about equally for Kaffs vs FW.

K's - bit picky, but I generally love good link/impact stories, strategic alts, and good alternative explanations. affs should challenge alt efficacy and win a convincing impact turn or link turn/takeout

T - Love a good T violation. Weighing standards and potential caselists helps a lot

CP's - Neg can pretty much do anything if they can justify it. Affs should be more comfortable calling out illegitimate, 'cheating' stuff. Solvency deficits need an impact or I wont care.

DA's - hard on this topic, especially against soft left affs. Do your best and I'll try to be sympathetic. I place more emphasis on fleshed out impact calc/turns case args and convincing link stories.

Theory - If you're gonna read it convince me you actually can go for it. Nothings more annoying than seeing 6 theory shells in the 2AC and 0 in the 1AR.

In depth shit:

T - I like T, but I can't catch all the analytics when you go the same speed as the rest of the debate. If you want full consideration of all arguments on T and theory, slow it down just a little bit please. Presentation of a clear view of the topic is very important to win the ballot regardless of whether you are aff or neg. Explain what the topic looks like under each interpretation and impact out the difference between interpretations as much as possible. I try to treat interpretations kind of like plans and CP's, so its helpful to phrase arguments here similarly (i.e interp doesn't solve this standard, prefer that standard because x).

DAs - I find I put a lot of emphasis on weighing the strength of the link and its direction at the end of the debate, and if that is hard to determine for sure, I move toward who has better impact framing. Not always the case, but tends to be true more often than not. DA turns case and case turns DA analysis should always be first and be as in depth as possible to ensure a ballot in your favor. I also appreciate specific research or smart spin when evaluating UQ and I/L debate questions.

CP's - Kind of like cheating cp's, they're a guilty pleasure. Obviously in general the more specific your cp is to the aff the better. I'd prefer if teams tried to focus on solvency claims, going in depth on why solvency deficits matter (doesn't resolve this i/l to this impact, ect) or, for negative teams, why the aff's i/l claim isn't as specific as they say it is and why your counterplan is good enough. Framing arguments really help that kind of debate take shape in your favor.

K's - kind of picky about these, but if you have a solid link explanation anywhere, I think you'll be ok, but you need a clear vision for the world of the alternative, as well as some impact calc. I am not well read on a lot of stuff unfortunately, I'll try to do my best to understand what you got for me. I'm generally fine with the basics like security, cap, feminism, and antiblackness. Post modernism arguments are generally towards the bottom on my favorites list (I have said in the past you can win against psychoanalysis with "this is not actual science" and a couple other basic arguments), but nothing is set in stone. If you are confident enough in your ability to explain an argument, I'll vote for you.

K affs - Fine with these, I like to see new perspectives on the topic. I'm probably not the best for K vs K debates honestly, I still find myself having trouble piecing everything together with K vs Framework sometimes. I think this is because these debates tend to get disorganized quickly, keep it as organized as possible if you want a reasonable decision. Some of the more high concept affs I've seen have had trouble articulating an impact to me in the past. If you are aff, please don't forget to give me an impact to the aff. You'd be surprised how often this is an issue.

Theory - haven't thought about this as much as I probably should have, but I generally think neg's can get away with a lot of condo options, though I think I can be swayed either way. Other types of theory, if you're gonna go for them, need to be clear on why reject the argument not the team shouldn't be my first and only thought at the end of the debate. Once that barrier is overcome, I will attempt to evaluate theory like any other argument, weighing offense/defense and what vision of debate I am endorsing with my ballot. I'm generally pretty sympathetic to aff teams who would otherwise be in a good position if abusive cheating CPs like uniform 50 state fiat and parole with 10 planks didn't exist. In both condo and other procedural theory args, addressing defensive arguments are more important than normal, do your best to address everything and resolve potential contradictions to your theory violation.

Speaks - I'm all over the place with these, but I try to reward good organization, clear speaking, smart CX questions and answers, and an overall good understanding of your arguments. The one thing to mention is when you're not answering your own CX questions, or not asking questions yourself, I'm almost never going to give you better speaks even if you give better speeches. But, if I think you're speaking OVER your partner or not letting them explain themselves and be egregious about it, I will give you less speaker points than your partner. This isn't a huge issue, but all I'm asking is you prove your competency during cx, and trust your partner can do the same.

Hope this all helps, above all, try to have fun and enjoy yourselves, and I'll do my best to provide you with the best decision I can. Good luck all!

Decision History:

Some fun stats (Immigration topic):

Policy aff vs Case

0-1

Policy aff vs CP/Case

0-2

Policy aff vs CP/DA

6-1

Policy aff vs DA/case

1-0

Policy aff vs K

2-0

Soft left aff vs procedural

2-1

Soft left aff vs CP/DA

3-2

Soft left aff vs DA/case

0-1

Soft left aff vs K/DA

1-0

Soft left aff vs K

3-2

Soft left aff vs T

3-4

K aff vs DA(heg good DA)

1-0

K aff vs FW

0-3

K aff vs K

1-1

Aff ballots vs Neg ballots(total):

23-19

Outrounds only :

Policy aff vs Case

0-1

Policy aff vs CP/Case

0-1

Policy aff vs CP/DA

3-0 (sat on panel 1-0)

Soft left aff vs procedural

1-0

Soft left aff vs T

2-1

Soft left aff vs K

0-3 (sat on panel 0-1)

K aff vs FW

0-1

Total:

6-7

I'll try to update these stats as each tournament progresses. Feel free to ask questions about any of these if you're looking to dive a little deeper on this stuff, either before round or through my email at the top.

Kinsee Gaither Paradigm

2 rounds

Not Submitted

Craig Gardner Paradigm

6 rounds

I have long experience in formal and informal speech and debate events. I debated in high school and college. I teach critical thinking and ethics at university. Perhaps you could say that I'm a traditional judge. As such, I'm very objective and will judge impartially, based solely on the merits of the debate. I generally have the following judging philosophy for Policy (CX):

Framework - Framework is necessary. Tell me where you're going and how you're going to get there. If no framework is provided, I'm left to making up my own mind what you're arguing. Impact calculus is crucial, because if the "problem" has no measurable impact, your policy is not necessary.

Topicality - For me, this is the foundation of Policy Debate. Establish, and root in the topic. Make sure all arguments have a claim, warrant, and impact. If your plan does not address the resolution, that's bad news for your case.

Solvency - Did I just say that "Topicality" is key? Okay, well, honestly, Solvency is the most important. You must convince me that your approach will effectively resolve a real problem. And when I say "resolve," I mean that real people are really affected.

Speed - I have no problem with your speed as long as you slow down a bit on identifying tags/authors for signposts. Clarity is far more important than speed. I personally prefer a slow, deliberate, thoughtful speech over a speech that is simply trying to wedge as much as possible into a short window of time.

DAs - Go for it, as long as your disadvantages are specific and topical. Nothing is worse than vague generalities.

Ks - Not a fan. But give it a go if that's your thing.

CX - Although I know other judges ignore and/or hate cross examination, I actually prefer it. A good CX demonstrates an intent to understand the opponent's point of view. Engage (don't accuse) in CX, and seek to understand. Understanding your opponent's position makes for a far more compelling debate.

Critique - I feel it's entirely appropriate to question the resolution itself. Just be sure that you can substantiate (with evidence) your critique of the resolution. The people who create resolutions are pretty smart folks, too, and the resolution deserves a fair shake.

Don't Drop Arguments - You drop, you lose.

Evidence, Evidence, Evidence - But reason, argumentation, and passion employing the evidence (quality) is far superior to a bucket-full of evidence (quantity). Substantiate all arguments with evidence.

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos - balance. Aristotle's views have persisted for 2500 years for a very good reason.

Off-time roadmap - No. Just. No. (Is this a thing in Policy?? It's a terribly annoying thing in other events.)

Bottom Line:

No Ad Hominem attacks; you must treat your opponent(s) with the utmost respect and civility, or I will penalize you. Be nice. Argue the issues, not the opponent. Speak plainly and clearly -- speed is fine, but not at the expense of understanding. I can easily see through "snow jobs"; I understand the reality of you reading a position that was originally written by someone else, but if you haven't bothered to study and understand the issue(s), the arguments, and case for yourself, you will not win and you're wasting everyone's time.

Kameron Hansen Paradigm

2 rounds

I’m very familiar with Lincoln Douglass, competed for a year there in my senior year. I spent my sophomore year with oratory and other speech events. I would prefer teams not to spread, traditional persuasion methods preferred.

Jacob Hooton Paradigm

6 rounds

Experience:

· 4-year policy debater in Montana

· Debate camp counselor

· Come from a family of debaters

· Full-time graduate student and I judge tournaments when I can.

Judging Philosophy: Policy Maker

· Focus on the impact calculus. Set aside a portion of your rebuttals for analysis. This will make my job easier.

· Focus on offenses arguments - Harms and Impacts (Advantages vs DA/CP)

Specific Issues:

Topicality

· I am willing to vote on Topicality if it is presented correctly. It needs to be structured and the Negative team needs to flow through and give analysis on the voters. If the voters are not flowed through or are dropped, I will not vote on it.

Inherency

· If the negative team chooses to run inherency, they need to create a framework explaining why it is important. Inherency attacks alone are not enough to outweigh.

Kritiks

· I have run and I am familiar with them. I want them to be structured with a clear alternative. Since I’m a Policy Maker judge, I want to hear the impacts of the K and how it will weigh against the other impacts in the debate.

Other Notes:

· Please be nice to each other. Being a jerk is only going to hurt your speaker points

· Please signpost!

· I'm fine with speed as long as you are clear overall (especially during taglines).

· Have fun, smile, tell a joke.

Meagan Kelsey Paradigm

6 rounds

Policymaker, comms, flow judge.
Clarity is key.

Nicholas Lassen Paradigm

6 rounds

Updated 12/2/2019

nicholasjlassen@gmail.com please include me on the email chain- you're also welcome to email me for any other questions as well

I am a debated in high school and college and I am the current head coach at Bingham HS in South Jordan, UT. I like most styles of debate i.e. I enjoy a good critical debate as much as I like a good policy debate. I engaged in more traditional styles of debating while competing, but as a coach/mentor I have gravitated towards non-traditional styles of debate. I dislike when people take over their partners cross ex and when people try and take the floor during a cross ex where they are supposed to be answering questions. I believe cross ex is a great place to set up for the arguments you are going to make in your speeches, if you want me to evaluate it, it needs to be in a speech.

Theory - I really enjoy a good topicality debate. However, my expectation for the negative to win is that they can clearly define the impacts of the argument i.e. how has the aff been unfair to you directly, what grounds have been lost, why is your model for education better? I dislike time suck theory that you are never going to go for-i.e. things like incredibly thin pics such as capitalize the L in the word lands and disclosure theory. The important thing to keep in mind is that if you want me to vote on theory, you have to be good at articulating the impacts.

CP's - I enjoy a well articulated counter plan. I believe that counter plans really need to be mutually exclusive either through actor or avoidance of a DA or something or else, otherwise it's really easy to buy the affirmatives claims of the perm. The permutation should be a test of competition towards the counterplan. In the plan v counterplan debate it is important to prove why your side is net beneficial either through some DA story or winning some solvency mitigation towards the aff or the CP.

DA's - it seems like good DA debate is few and far between this year. My expectation on the DA debate is really articulate the link story. I think a lot of generic da's are easy to non/unique out of. As far as the link story goes, I need a good internal link chain. Please make sure that I can see how we get from the aff to point b and then point c.

Politics - I have a strong tendency to default to more recent evidence on politics disads. This can definitely create a research burden but if you want to run politics then you should know that this means that a lot of the time, it boils down to a recency/card quality debate.

K's

Aff - I want to know that your K aff means something. I am much more likely to buy into your criticism if there is some sort of personal connection. If you want to read narratives or engage in performance, that is fine but please justify why that is valid. Make sure you are ready for the framework debate. I need to know why your framework is better for education than the negative or why I should choose to recognize your role of the ballot versus theirs.

Neg - I am open to most K's on the neg. I know it practically impossible to have hyper specific link cards for every aff. But with that in mind, please articulate how the aff links through a thorough analysis. Please make sure that you articulate the alternative well-I want to know what the world of the alternative looks like and what happens when I sign my ballot neg. If I am left confused about what the world of the alt looks like, it will be hard for you to win the debate.

K AFF vs K

The one point I want to make here is that I have a higher threshold for voting on the permutation then i do in a plan v cp debate. I hold the aff to a similar burden as the negative, i would not let them just stand up and coopt your advocacy so i most likely wont let you stand up and just say perm do both and gain 100% access to their advocacy. I want the competing ideologies weighed against each other and to know why your world is "better" then the opposing teams.

Please don't be rude, disrespectful, racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. I will doc your speaks and most likely drop you. It's not welcome in debate or in society overall.

Crystal Legionaires Paradigm

6 rounds

The time has come for my yearly overhaul of my paradigm

Crystallegionaires@gmail.com

Debating
Weber State University- 5 1/2 years included attending the NDT and breaking at CEDA
Alta High School- 3 years

Judging
Judging and helping at West High- 5 years
Current Judging for Weber State

"I know in your heart of hearts you hate [policy arguments] but you also vote for that stuff all the time."
-Mike Bausch

The more I judge, the more I find that the way that I debated and the way that I judge are fairly different. I love kritik debate and I find it to be some of the most educational debates and research that I have found personally with inserting and forefronting real life impacts and experiences into debate especially for me as a disabled transgender woman. I also find that "kritik" or "performance" or "nontraditional" teams or what have you are bad at answering policy arguments from framework to simple extinction outweighs. It's incredibly frustrating but despite my reluctance, leads me to voting a fair amount for policy arguments. Let me make this clear though, I'm not a great judge for your super technical line by line on a politics disad though I won't be opposed to voting on that for you if you win.

One of the main reasons I present this with a caveat is because I have a **sensory processing disorder.** If you want to spread through and get as many arguments out no matter what, I will be unable to keep up with you and I will tell you to slow down. It is in your best interest to do so. The more time I struggle to hear the less I'm hearing and writing down. Furthermore if you refuse to slow down, **I will stop writing down arguments and start removing speaker points.** I'll tell you to slow down 3 times and then I will stop flowing. Further speeches will have 1 warning before that happens. Whatever speed I lower you to, go one lever below that to account for speeding up in the speech later. Trust me, you don't need that last argument more than you want me to understand the debate. 1 card I do understand is way better than 10 cards I don't. I almost never read cards unless necessary or if I'm looking for feedback so reliance on cards won't get you that far. If you want me to read a piece of evidence, it needs to be on an important part of the debate that can't be resolved otherwise and needs to be impacted out.

I'm a truth over tech judge one good/"true" argument can beat ten terrible cards. However, that doesn't mean you can't get me to vote on tech, you just have to impact it out more. If there is a strategic messup by your opponents and you explain why that should grant you and argument eg if they concede a permutation and you go for it even if it doesn't make sense outside of debate, if you explain it, I'm willing to grant it to you. You need to explain your shit. Cards and dropped arguments aren't inherently true and round ending. You have to tell me why all your shit matters for me to weigh it. I find teams are especially light on their impact level of the debate and on the solvency of their arguments so I would make sure to have emphasis there.

Postmodernism, psychoanalysis and the like aren't my cup of tea. I often spend these debates trying to wrap my mind around the terminology rather than the argument in question which can be a detriment to the debaters in round, just how my mind processes new information. I won't straight tell you I won't vote on it but I also find these arguments struggle to have applicability that can be explained in the "real world."

I believe there can be zero risk of impacts. I don't believe in assigning .1% risk of impacts to extinction. Either way the impacts go you need to tell me why that is the case.

I also don't believe that you just saying so means that you solve 100% of the aff with your counterplan. You need to explain in depth why that is the case

I default that the ballot does have meaning and that debate isn't just a game. I can be persuaded otherwise but I feel you need to explain why the community and activism that happens in debate is more of a side effect instead of debate actually having meaning

I think nontopical affs are often really cool and bring extra insight into the topic. For framework teams, i can be persuaded that these teams are cheating if it's impacted out and the education is bad but there is often a lack of legalistic warrants or topic specific education warrants to these arguments which needs to be present. I generally think it is better for the aff to be resolutional eg if it's an immigration topic, talk something about immigration but I won't penalize you for not doing so.

If you run a nontopical aff, you need a disad to the topical version of the aff on framework. I can't stress this enough. Many of my decisions have been made because the TVA solves the aff meaning the offense goes away or the aff forget to extend offense or impact out that disad. This is THE point that I find myself voting on over and over again on framework/t

I do find the evidential debate on disads and counterplans especially to have unique education and debate benefits that don't exist elsewhere and look forward to how debaters utilize them

I think theory debates are really useless. Everyone runs condo and severance perms and it's more of a flow check. I have a high threshold for a theory argument and there better be a damn good reason why you are turning the debate into a theory debate. I also find debaters being exceptionally bad at impacting out theory and explaining the standards. For these reasons I don't see myself voting on theory in the near future. Exceptions to the rule are 50 State fiat, world government fiat and other ridiculous multiactor counterplans and possibly utopian fiat on absurd kritiks.

I think "performative" arguments are really important to the activity and bring pathos that the event often badly lacks. Because of this, I often find myself giving better speaker points to performative teams. I don't think it is cheating or undebateable for someone to bring in their or other experiences and I look forward to these debates. That being said, I can often be persuaded to vote on framework because performative teams often struggle with what to do with their performance once they have performed.

Jackie Leininger Paradigm

2 rounds

I prioritize speaking clearly and slowly enough that it's understandable. I will vote based on persuasion and convincing evidence, and mostly consider realistic outcomes and impacts.

Tucker Lovell Paradigm

6 rounds

Debated for four years for Bonneville High school and I am a current debater for Weber State University.

I was a 1A/2N in a very policy oriented circuit in High school.

I have a good understanding of most debate arguments. I will most likely understand your argument and how it interacts with your opponent's.

Biases

I will try not to let any biases I have as a debater influence my decision. Each round isnt about the judges pre-determined ideas, it is about who does the better/smarter debating. 

I default to a policymaking framework unless told not to.

Impact out your FW arguments, you will have a tough time trying to win FW in front of me if you dont impact it out. I love a good FW debate, you just need to tell me why it matters.

K affs - I tend to prefer affs that are in the direction of the topic. However, if you run an anti-topical aff, dont be afraid to run it in front of me. I will evaluate the claims you are making. Make sure you have a good defense for your stance. 

I believe debate should be a place for people to have discussions that they otherwise wouldnt be able to have elsewhere. Debate should be a space where everyone should feel welcome. There is line between "rage" arguments (which I like) and personally attacking opponents for who they are. 

Strategy for my ballot

Impact out your arguments.

give me some way to view your argument, dont assume that I will just default that value to life outweighs extinction and vice versa. You must do that work for me.

Have fun, nothing is harder to watch and judge than a round where no one wants to be there. Compete and do your best.

I understand your kritikal arguments. I understand your policy arguments. Tell me why they matter. How does your marx K interact with their Space aff?

I reward witty and humurous debating with higher speaker points.

If you have any questions - email me at tl32501@gmail.com

I would like to be in the email chain/pocketbox

Saige Miller Paradigm

I debated in high school, college, and currently coach.

Run whatever argument you'd like--it's y'alls debate, not mine.

If you're going to talk about sexual assault or suicide, I'd like a trigger warning. If you won't provide one, strike me :-)

Tom Neiswanger Paradigm

4 rounds

I have set up point systems for each event. These are based upon the event's structure and the participants ability to function within those limits. I follow time limits and add/deduct points based upon -10/+10 seconds from time. Failure to manage your time can cost you the round. Spreading is fine but doesn't benefit without value. Data dumps are just that and nothing more. I also give equal value to offensive and defensive arguments, and will penalize for failure to do both should your opponent's presentation require it.

Matt Neiswanger Paradigm

4 rounds

I want to be swayed by your arguments. A few well thought out points can be more powerful than a large volume of uncorrelated facts. I like originality. Show me why your position is best! Have fun!!!

Henry Olson Paradigm

6 rounds

I debated policy for West High school and went on to coach for them, as well as becoming the dedicated policy coach at East High school. When I was in high school I was a k, framework, and theory debater. As long as an argument follows the proper structure, I don't care how crazy it is, go for it. Explain it well, however, I like to know what I'm getting when I sign a ballot. As for speed, if you sound like a garbage disposal chewing up a glass, I will just stop flowing.

If you have any specific questions feel more than free to ask them for the round, but I am lazy and don't feel like writing 20 paragraphs on what arguments I like.

Erin Pack-Jordan Paradigm

6 rounds

Note- my judge wiki hasn't been updated in quite awhile and is focused mostly on policy judging (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Pack%2C+Erin ). Please default to the paradigm below.

Paradigm: I identify most strongly as a Tab judge and will listen to any warranted argument. I tend to default to Policy Making and enjoy a good impact calc debate. Argue what you are comfortable arguing. It's your debate round, not mine.

Speed: I understand spreading pretty well, but please enunciate. I will shout "CLEAR!" one time if I can't understand. Adjust accordingly. Be especially clear on your tags and theory args.

Kritiks: As they logically flow within the context of the round, go for it. You need to have more than a Spark Notes understanding of the author's ideas. The rule of thumb for me with K's- don't read something if it doesn’t offer a competitive alternative and you can't sufficiently link it into the case without making a huge leap. I want logical progression. Generic Ks for their own sake are no bueno.

Style Points: Be polite and present thoughtful arguments. Don't be an awful human being. I consider this to include: being rude to other people in-round, randomly shouting at the other team during their speeches, racist/sexist/classist/xenophobic/homophobic/ableist comments to other people.

LD Specifics: I appreciate good clash on framework. Most of my LD ballots go to debaters who can provide the most offense-based arguments and the best value/criterion linkages. I also like evidence, policy-based approaches, and a priori considerations.


Who is this person?: I love debate, and believe it can be a force for good. This is my 13th year of semi-regularly judging! I'm originally from rural Texas, hold a BA in History and a Masters in Social Studies Education, and ran my own full-service forensics programs in Texas and Utah for 8 years. I served on the curriculum board of the Women's Debate Institute, worked several camps, tabbed many tournaments, and was the judge coordinator for the 2016 NSDA Nationals in Salt Lake City. After a short "retirement" period, I'm now an assistant coach at Green Canyon High School in Utah.

Ivan Perez Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Kate Phillippo Paradigm

3 rounds

I prefer "conservative" cases (straightforward, followable arguments) and I am looking for a clear link-chain that is supported by quality evidence. Please state your arguments and conclusions very clearly.

I am a relatively new parent judge but am in a profession where I evaluate the quality of arguments every day. I am comfortable with both traditional and progressive arguments as long as they are clearly connected to evidence.

I insist upon professional and courteous decorum toward one's opponent(s) and all judges present.

I would like to be added to email chains, but I do not want to have to rely on written evidence or arguments to keep up your argument. If you speak too fast, I will say "clear."

Chris Pynes Paradigm

3 rounds

YOU DO YOU!

***CX***

Put me on the email chain: Capynes@gmail.com

• Will consider any arg (except anything blatantly racist, homophobic, misogynistic , etc.) Just argue it well.

• Down for the K on either side but if you can't it explain it, don't expect a ballot. My background in Higher Theory isn't super extensive but i can generally keep up. That being said just assume that I know nothing about your K cause there is a possibility that its true.

• Performance is cool.

• Affs don't have to defend the topic but topicality can still be a voting issue if argued right.

• I will reward creative args and answers with speaks

• Act however during speeches but be civil when the timer's not running, debate should be fun for all.

• I personally believe good analytics are more powerful than a wall of cards

***LD***

• My background is in policy however this year I have gotten a bit of experience judging LD, take my notes with a grain of salt I am still learning what high level LD really looks like.

•Speed? cool.

• Will consider any arg (except anything blatantly racist, homophobic, misogynistic , etc.) Just argue it well.

•"will you listen to X progressive argument?" Yes, of course.

• Framework args need love too, I really am not loving the trend of shadow extending your interps with no warrant.

•I should understand most of your concepts but good explanations are always good.

• I will reward creative args and answers with speaks

• Act however during speeches but be civil when the timer's not running, debate should be fun for all.

Tanya Roundy Paradigm

4 rounds

I am a coach of over 14 years for policy, pf, ld and all speech events at North Sanpete HS, Mission San Jose, Alta and Summit Academy.

In HS I competed in Speech events, LD and coached policy teams (there was no pf then).

I am the Chair for the NSDA Sundance District and president elect for the UDCA. I have judged IE events at the Nationals Level and currently serve on a wording commitee. In other words, I know what I'm doing and know speech and debate very well!

I believe that you should give a well organized logical argument in any debate. Topicality is imperative to a debate, and supporting and explaining your position on that topic is vital to a clear argument construct. If you don't say it, I didn't hear it. Don't assume I will know what your evidence means the same as you...

Policy debate should be relevant, and well understood by the competitors otherwise it will not be understood by the judges. I do not mind speed, but if it is so fast that I can no longer understand your words, then I can no longer understand your argument to judge it. K's and theory are fine as long as they go toward the overal value of the debate and topic.

Public Forum should be a thoughtful discussion and not overly repeat questions and answers. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you.

Lincoln Douglas should have a clear value and critereon from which to work from, and stay focused on topic and argument. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you.

IEs should be unique, appropriate, and follow all structures outlined in their respective events.

Gavin Schenk Paradigm

5 rounds

Just tell me how to vote I don't really have an inclination to anything.

Mike Shackelford Paradigm

1 rounds

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I work hard to be objective.
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Ian Beier, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Malcom Gordon, Jyleesa Hampton, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp


If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Andrew Arsht, Madison Barker, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, James Steiner, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).


LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Catherine Shackelford Paradigm

3 rounds

Please include me on the email chain: jdutdebate@gmail.com

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible. I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions. I will not tolerate language or behaviors that create a hostile environment. Please include trigger warnings for sexual violence. Feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Specific things:

Speed - I'm comfortable with speed but please recognize that if you're reading typed blocks that are not in the speech doc at the same speed you are reading cards, there's a chance I will miss something because I can't flow every word you're saying as fast as you can say them. Slow down just a bit for what you want me to write down or include your blocks in the doc. I will say "clear" if you are not clear.

Topicality- I enjoy good topicality debates. To me good topicality debates are going to compare impacts and discuss what interp of the topic is going to be better for the debate community and the goals that are pursued by debaters.The goals and purpose of debate is of course debatable and can help establish which impacts are more important than others so make sure you're doing that work for me.

Counterplans- I enjoy creative counterplans best but even your standard ones will be persuasive to me if there is a solid solvency advocate and net-benny.

Theory - In-round abuse will always be far more persuasive to me than merely potential abuse and tricksy interps. I expect more than just reading blocks.

K- I really enjoy a good critical debate. Please establish how your kritik interacts with the affirmative and/or the topic and what that means for evaluating the round in some sort of framework. Authors and buzzwords alone will not get you very far even if I am familiar with the literature. I expect contextual link work with a fully articulated impact and alternative. If your K does not have an alternative, I will weigh it as a DA (that's probably non-unique).

Performance - All debate is a performance and relies on effective communication. If you are communicating to me a warranted argument, I do not care how you are presenting it.

John Shackelford Paradigm

6 rounds

John Shackelford

Assistant Coach: Rowland Hall, UT

Debated for: Bingham, UT

College: The University of Utah, UT

****TLDR IN BOLD*****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (rohodebatefiles[at]gmail / johnshackelf[at]gmail) please include both. I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check on clipping and to follow along with cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am ok with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

Khalid Sharif Paradigm

4 rounds

Experience: 9 years of policy debate

HS: Highland (SLC)

College: University of West Georgia- NDT 1st Round

Coach @ Juan Diego (UT)

Add me to the email chain JDUTDEBATE@gmail.com.-

Please appropriately title emails

[Tournament/Round#/ Aff Team Code vs Neg Team Code]

General

Warrants > Tech > Truth

If you don't fluctuate tone and annunciate but read blocks at top speed, I am not the judge for you. You are doing yourself a disservice when you spread through blocks faster than I can flow.

I don’t care what style of debate you prefer. Instead, I’m interested in your ability to defend and advance the advocacies and arguments you find important and/or strategic. I will do my best to adapt to you unless your spreading is incomprehensible, then I won't even look at the speech doc. Some additional thoughts.

  1. Line-by-Line > Long generic overviews
  2. Clarity of thought is paramount. I often find myself voting for teams that can make complex arguments sound like common sense.
  3. Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence interrogation in speeches and cross-examination. I don't like reading cards after the debate, please put the important spin and quotations of the card "on the flow."
  4. If there is an “easy” way to vote that is executed and explained well, I’m very likely to take it.
  5. I’d prefer to judge the text of the round in front of me rather than what debaters/teams have done outside of that round.
  6. I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation.
  7. Well explained meta-framing arguments usually control my ballot but aren’t a substitute for substantive impact comparison.
  8. Less is more. The earlier in a debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more of a chance I have to really latch onto what is going on and make a decent decision.
  9. Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. Most debates are won or lost on a few primary debatable questions. If you are the first to identify and answer those questions thoroughly, you will likely be ahead in my mind.
  10. Minimizing downtime is important. Go to the bathroom and jump/email the 1AC before the round start time.
  11. If you are a very fast debater who lacks clarity, turn it down slightly otherwise I may miss important arguments. Flowing/info processing time is real, if you are speak at top speed with little vocal inflection, I may miss a whole lot.

Stephanie Shelton Paradigm

3 rounds

***If you have me judging on the 2/4/18 there is a large possibility that I will be watching the superbowl instead of flowing your round (Go Patriots!)***

Updated for Golden Desert Public Forum: I am a hardcore policy judge and have next to zero PF experience so pref at your own risk.

I am a coach over at East High School in UT and have been for the past couple years

***+0.5 speaks for any High School Musical References.***

Argument Preference:

I think framework is fairly pointless and will probably end up avoiding evaluating it at all costs, but you do you.

Your contention titles should be clear enough for me to understand your entire argument based on them alone.

I feel like Public Forum all to often ignores offense but this is a huge no-no with me, tell me why each contention individually wins you the round

Plan is ok but make sure to lay out solvency well, remember you don't get fiat here like you do in policy.

I love topicality, so try and work it in when y'all are neg

General:

I only intervene in special situations (i.e. sexism, racism, republicanism, ect.) I will listen to every type of argument except politics because in this climate I think it is fairly pointless.

Will drop a team for suggesting the globe is round and always looking for like minded science allies. Really not a fan of ignorance in general and you can expect low speaks if your speeches come close to a presidential levels falsehoods.

Make sure to be aggressive during cross-ex, I hate hearing "Would you like the first question?", this is a competition take anything you can to get a leg up on your opponent.

Speaks:

Most of the time I give around a 26 but that can change, I have never given a 30 so try and be my first :)

Good Trump impressions +1.0

Bad Trump impressions -2.0

Claire Smith Paradigm

6 rounds

For local tournaments

I think that if you are going to do progressive debate at a tournament where your opponent is more traditional it would be great for you to have some way they could read your case if you are spreading. I don't think it is constructive or education to not assist someone who is unfamiliar with terminology or specific types of cases.

Additionally, while it is probably my preference to judge more progressive arguments I would prefer to watch a good traditional debate than a mediocre progressive debate.

LD

This is the event I’m most familiar with. I competed in highschool and am good with most types of arguments. Honestly just do what you feel most comfortable with.

K arguments

I am comfortable judging k-affs, performance Ks and regular Ks.

I love a good K and am familiar with a lot of the literature. If it is something obscure I need you to explain the K (for my sake and the sake of your opponents.

CPs

go for it

Topicality

I need weighing against counter-interp. no RVIs plz

Theory

For both theory and topicality I need them to be justified. I don't think an excessive theory shell makes sense at all strategically nor do I believe that it is a good use of time.

Policy

Good with whatever, if you have any specific questions lmk. Please include me in the email chain.

Public Forum

I’m a flow judge, am good with speed and I’m really okay with whatever you want to run. Please, please, please use sign-posting and clear extensions. line-by-line is helpful for everybody in the room.

If you are going to claim an opponent is violating the rules, I need this to actually be the case. Particularly due to time constraints I really don’t want to watch a debate about the rules of debate if the argument of abuse is not grounded - it’s honestly a waste of your time, your opponent’s time and my time.

Random bits and pieces

1. I’m not going to be flowing cross-x, I view it as mainly for the benefit of debaters.

2. I don’t have any preference around sitting or standing, just do whatever is comfortable.

3. I have a weak immune system, please do not shake my hand.

email: claire.e.smith@me.com

Jordan Stephens Paradigm

6 rounds

I do college policy at Weber State University

email: jordanstephens2@mail.weber.edu

1. I will hear any argument you have. Just make sure it has a claim, warrant, and impact.

2. I do more performative arguments so I am not the best tech wise. I should be able to hear and understand your arguments no matter the debate.

3. Cross ex is important and I will consider the things you've said.

4. Do not be rude, racists, homophobic, ect. You can be mad, loud, soft, funny. Just do not be rude.

5. Last just have fun and learn something! Be passionate. Extra speaker points for the level of spiciness you bring to a debate.

Joseph Tyler Paradigm

Background I competed in high school for 4 years focusing on policy debate, though I competed in all the other formats. I debate in college and am currently the assistant debate coach for Skyline High School.

Ultimately this is your round, so you can run whatever you want. I can follow along with any arguments you run. That being said, there are a few things to note while debating.

Framework Framework is essential to me as a judge. Tell me how I should evaluate the round and that's how I'll vote. If no framework is provided, I'll default to an offense/defense paradigm. Impact Calculus is also a significant factor in how I generally weigh the round.

Theory I love theory debate, make sure to extend impacts and abuse. If you want me to vote for you, clearly explain what the abuse in the round is.

Condo I do generally lean towards aff and prefer the neg strat to be unconditional. As neg, don't contradict yourself, and don't run 9 off case and plan to kick 6 of them as a time suck as I'll likely vote aff on condo (only, of course, if they run it as abuse). Neg dropping one or two of their off case that have proven to be irrelevant is fine though.

Topicality T debate is fine. Neg needs to prove the definition and model they provide for T is good for all debate, not simply this round. Aff needs to clearly explain to me what makes their case reasonably topical.

Counterplans CP's are fun, a few things of note though. 1) Make sure the CP is mutually exclusive, generally through the actor or avoiding a DA. Otherwise I am more likely to vote aff on a perm. The CP debate must show why there is a net benefit to one side in order to win.

DA Good to run, you should almost definitely run them. I'm not a fan of generic DA's. Case specific DA's will always be substantially better

Politics On politics DA's I generally will prefer more recent evidence. I understand that's often a heavy research burden but such is often the case when running Politics.

K's Absolutely love K debate. Neg, while it's generally unrealistic to have specific link cards to every single aff, do make sure that you explain clearly how the aff links into the K. Additionally, clearly explain what happens when I circle neg. If the alternative is confusing to me, I have a hard time voting on it. K Aff's are fine, but I prefer that there is a personal connection with the aff team to the criticism. Narratives and performance are fine but be ready to justify the validity of this style of debate. And make sure you are ready for a framework debate and clearly explain why my ballot ought to go aff.

Speed Speed is fine, I can keep up with it all. 3 notes on it however. 1) Slow down and emphasize tags and author so I can write them down. 2) Slow a bit on theory arguments so I can write them down and understand them. 3) Enunciate every word. Speed and spewing are not the same thing.

Courtesy Be nice to each other. Debate is a game you play with your friends, so don't be mean.

Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round begins

Lindsay Van Luvanee Paradigm

5 rounds

I debated throughout high school and then at Idaho State University for 5 years. I then coached at Idaho State University for 2 years, Weber for 1, and USC for 1. I've been out of the game this season, fair warning.

I am a firm believer that debate is for debaters. I've had my time to make others listen to whatever (and I mean absolutely whatever) I wanted to say, and it's my turn to listen to and evaluate your arguments, whatever they may be. While I'm sure I have my limitations, make me adapt to you instead of the other way around.

I try my damnedest to line up all the arguments on my flow. I am, however, open to alternate flowing styles. I really do prefer when debaters make specific reference of which argument(s) they are answering at a given time regardless of flowing style. I also flow the text of cards.

I prefer not to call for evidence (although I would like to be on your email chain... misslindsayv@gmail.com). This means explain, explain, explain! Tell me what the card says; tell me why I should care and how I should apply it. That being said, I do not think that cards are always better than analytics.

Be prepared to defend all aspects of your argument.

Everything is open to (re)interpretation. For example, some questions that may be relevant to my ballot include: What is the purpose of debate? How does this affect the way that impacts are evaluated? These kinds of top-level framing issues are the most important to me.

This means things like framework and T (fun little-known fact: I've always found topicality in general super interesting--I love the nit-picky semantics of language) can be viable options against K affs. However, you are better off if you have a substantive response to the aff included as well.

I'm still kind of deciding how I feel about how competition functions in method debates. I think the most accurate depiction of what I think about it now is this (and it all obviously depends on what's happening in the debate/on the flow, but in general): I'll probably err that the affirmative on-face gets a permutation to determine if the methods are mutually exclusive, and so that means the best strategy for the negative in this world is to generate their links to the aff's method itself to prove that mutual exclusivity.

I'd really appreciate it if you could warn me in advance if there will be graphic descriptions of sexual violence.

Andrew Van Slooten Paradigm

6 rounds

If you have any questions email me vanslootenandrew@gmail.com

History:

I debated CX at Bentonville High School in Arkansas. However, I branched out and my senior year I attended the TOC and NSDA nationals in PF. So I’m a tab judge. Since HS, I attend BYU and don’t debate, but I try to judge as much as I can.

Speaking:

I don’t care how fast you go but if you spread give me and your opponents a copy of the AC/NC and any evidence you read. Just be clear and articulate. Explain things in the best way in the least words possible. I like a really organized line-by-line.

Framing:

I’m fine with framing and shifting my orientation and values based on what you tell me matters. This is a great way to win the round because at the end of the day I default to impact calculus above all. Framing tells me what I value (your impacts) and why I value them. Just don’t make this a messy flow or I will curse you.

AC/NC:

Make speeches with impacts. Talk about why your impacts matter and make sure you have good links.

Topicality:

Look T in PF is real shady and annoying because it is hard to draw a bright line as to what is under the umbrella. Usually, I lean to the argument that if it links well enough then it is topical. But if you do debate T then you better debate it in the CX format. Nice and structured. Also, explain what T matters and give me a reason to vote them down on not being topical. Answer this question: they’re not topical, so what?

Theory:

Basically the same as topicality. If you don’t explain why them doing something actually matters they’ll get away with it. I don’t like arguments that say “it’s against the rules of PF, so vote them down.” I determine the rules, so tell me what the rules should be and why.

Abuse:

Do not use this word, please. It’s annoying.

Final Speech:

You have two minutes. Tell me why you win.

Thane Zeeh Paradigm

5 rounds

Hello Friends

See, we didn't realize it at the time but all the early mornings, late nights, cards we created, the research we conducted, rivalries we had, rounds we won & lost; were nothing but memories that fade away with time. For all the past members of this community, all those that have yet to give their first speech, to those who work within this space now... Thank you. The best there ever was.

... ... ...

EXPERIENCE:

I debated four years on the high school circuit.

I currently debate on the collegiate circuit.

I currently coach.

... ... ...

THESIS:

This gets unpacked down the paradigm, but in the all too common cases of debaters forgetting to read the paradigm until moments before the round starts, something like this can help: Speed is fine but slow down on your tags. Flex CX is okay in all events. Tag-teaming in applicable events is also okay. I'd prefer good analytics over bad evidence analysis any day. CX is binding but I don't flow it (you'll have to note what they said in your speech). Tech over truth, but prefer truth over tech framing. 1-2 off > 9 off.

... ... ...

*POLICY DEBATE* *LD underneath*

1. Overview: Do what you're best at. I enjoy judging anything from stock policy affirmatives, politics/NB debates, K-Aff debates, big stick hegemony debates, soft-left advocacy debates, far-left rage advocacies, Russia war good, AI, wipeout, framing debates around policy, topicality, condo, the list goes on... do what you're best at.

2. Specifics: However as with all judges; some preferences do in fact influence and stem from personal debating style and natural judge bias'. Mine are as follows:

... (a) I value the framework on the K debate more than other judges. You have to win why looking at ontology, epistemology, performance, etc. is better than the default framework put forward by the aff.

... (b) I place more value on standards/harms than the interpretation/violation portion of a T debate.

... (c) smart analytics are good. I don't want you to not debate because of a lack of evidence, you can still gain offense... all things considered, Debate accordingly.

... (d) perms are a right the aff has as advocacy to check negative abuse. In general, condo good up to two advocacies, after that theory could start becoming a VI/cross applicable piece of the offense.

... (e) I defer to neg on presumption a lot easier than other judges; meaning aff, you need to prove 1. risk of an impact and 2. really deliver how the solvency mechanism of your aff solves those impacts 3. Tell the story in the 2ar. 4. Give me a really good impact and framing (if necessary) and do a lot of comparison to how it clashes with the work done in the 2nr.

... (f) Yes, if you drop an argument (i.e a terminal theory VI) I'll be forced to vote on that. However, I do enjoy truth over tech debates more, I believe it fosters better argumentation as well as a curriculum within the round. That being said, I won't stop you from reading 9 off in the 1nc.

3. Extensions: If you don't extend an argument across the flow into the 2nr/2ar it won't exist during the post-round. It's your job to carry me through the round & make the RFD easy. I won't complete the puzzle for you, that's the burden of the debaters. And FYI, saying 'extend Robinson, extinction, vote negative' doesn't cut it. I think a level of understanding and work should be done on what the card says is good and should be done.

... (a) I find myself ignoring and/or being unable to flow author names and years. In response to this either clear up those tags OR don't reference a card by name, explain your evidence makes the claim - then say the specific claim.

4. Speed: Speed is okay/ just don't be mean-spirited/offensive. If your opponent(s) are unable to follow along and they're clearly loosing, don't twist the knife. You'll get lower speaker points and forever will be flagged as a rude debater/team. If you're debating a novice/first year and you're rude you get 25 speaker points, no questions asked. The debate should be about inclusion and fun not making the opposition's time horrible. Ev violations = auto loss and a report to tab. Clipping cards = a warning & after that a loss and a report to tab.

... ... ...

*LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE*

1. I can understand speed, however, sometimes your opponent cannot. You must, have too, adapt to your opponent's ability and tolerance for speed. Because LD is NOT CX, the inclusivity to speaking styles has to be taken into account. If your strategy is to simply outspread your opponent, it will result in low speaker points and I will most definitely vote you down on theory.

2. Assertions are not arguments. So many times, I see debate students make vague arguments that lack substance. Saying 'individual rights come before security because individual rights are a pre-requisite' doesn't qualify as an argument. You need to explain the warrant, claim, and the application to your case & contentions in a clear manner, otherwise I won't count and/or consider your argument in the post-round when rendering my decision.

3. I will filter my decision through the lens of the framework debate, however you need to give me external offensive reasons as to why your framework is better than your opponents. If the two worlds are similar enough (i.e. security & pragmatism) and there's a lack of clash and specific reasons why one ought to be preferred higher than the other, I'll most likely morph the two competing interpretations together and frame the debate under the two.

4. Unlike policy, due to the shorter length of an LD round, Warrants/Smart Analytics > Evidence.

5. That being said, I do sometimes call for evidence. Depending on the level of speed or in the case of close-debates I will use evidence to break ties based on academic integrity or lack of, within the claims being made. You'll also find I'll call up for evidence more in elimination rounds to be assured the decision I render is the correct one.

6. Flex CX and prep is cool (won't drop speaker points).

7. I value T a lot higher in LD as opposed to CX due to the time-constraints and shorter-topic times. Keep this in mind on both sides.